The thing is, they ARE willing to compromise, their "small bites" approach is proving quite effective over time.

That's not compromise. That's deceit.

Compromise, as I posted, is when both sides give up something, reach a genuine middle ground, and both sides agree to live with that middle ground.

If the other side isn't willing to abide by the compromise, and the day after the ink dries they're already working on the NEXT "compromise" -- that's not compromise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MedicineBow

I have no idea what you mean. The Second Amendment does not, has not, and will not guarantee unregulated access to and use of all arms. It is pointless to pretend otherwise.

I'm not pretending anything. If you don't think that's exactly what the 2nd Amendment intended, then what do you think it DID intend to protect?

Look up Tench Coxe. He was a member of the convention that wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

"The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."